U.S. Litigation (Strategic Preparations and Statistics) Thomas K. Scherer

Transcription

1 U.S. Litigation (Strategic Preparations and Statistics) Thomas K. Scherer

2 OSHA LIANG Firm introduction and overview 5 Offices, 115 total staff 9 Partners, 35 Attorneys 8 Patent Agents, 7 Patent Engineers John (Hunter) Osha Founder / Managing Partner Chyau Liang, PhD Partner / Head of China Team

3 Office Locations Houston, Texas Established 1998 Total staff: 95 Firm headquarters for admin functions

4 Office Locations Paris, France Established 2001 Total staff: 10 European and French patent attorneys

5 Office Locations Santa Clara, CA Silicon Valley Established 2004 Total staff: 8 Software and Electrical Engineering

6 Office Locations Austin, Texas Established 2007 Copyright Litigation

7 Office Locations Tokyo, Japan Kasumigaseki Established 2008 U.S. and EP client liaison Licensed to advise Japanese clients on U.S. law

8 General Overview Firm philosophy Client service high-teq Timeliness, Efficiency, Quality Long-term client relationships Get to know the client s business and people Build from the bottom Patent Agent Program Technical expertise Acquired legal expertise Homogeneous Patent Administration Group (PAG) PCT specialists, paralegals, and clerks use custom checklists, software, and procedures to handle tasks consistently

9 General Overview Teamwork Horizontal Establish best team to carry out project Client-specific teams Vertical Establish effective senior/junior pairings Include paralegals and other staff (PAG)

10 Patent Agent Program Recruit engineers and scientists from top universities Typically two classes per year One year of formal in-house training Weekly lectures Practical exercises Weekly roundtable meetings Then, USPTO Patent Agent exam Then, law school part time while working

11 Legal Technology Groups John Osha and Thomas Scherer Group Leaders Group 1 Electrical/Mechanical Group 4 Software Group 2 Bio/Pharma/Nuclear Robert Lord Chyau Liang Group 3 Chemicals & Composites Jeff Bergman

12 Supervisory Structure of Legal Groups GL: Ultimate client responsibility; training; group management CM: Day-to-day management of all matters for client; assignment of cases Group Leader Client Managers WA: Case-level responsibility; reports to CM Working Attorney/Agent

13 Purpose of Legal Technology Groups Relationship management Each client assigned to one group Group members trained on client s technology, needs, and preferences Cross-training for multi-technology clients Group-level mentoring of new staff Workload management Hiring coordination

14 Other Legal Groups IP Litigation Louis Bonham Federal Court specialist Copyrights Architectural copyright expert Richard Siluk Federal Court specialist Patents and trademarks Brian Wunder Federal and State Court Civil litigation and trials

15 Other Legal Groups Trademarks John Montgomery Licenses and complex trademark matters Richard Siluk Trademark litigation Kristen Gruber Trademark prosecution (mark) TM (reg. mark)

16 Foreign Practice Groups Asia John Osha Patent Attorney English, French, Spanish, Japanese (intermediate) Katsuyuki Ninomiya U.S. Attorney Japanese Benrishi English, Japanese Koichiro Nakanishi Japanese Benrishi English, Japanese

17 Foreign Practice Groups Asia Koichiro Nakamura Patent Attorney English, Japanese Yuichi Watanabe Patent Attorney U.S. Master of Law candidate 2012 English, Japanese Daniel H. Watanabe, PhD English, Japanese Recipient of the Order of the Sacred Treasure, Gold Rays, Rosette ( 勲四等瑞宝賞 ) from the Japanese government

18 Foreign Practice Groups Asia Chyau Liang, PhD Patent Attorney English, Taiwanese, Mandarin Chrissa (Yue) Jiao Chinese Patent Attorney U.S. Master of Law (LL.M.) Duen-Hwa Yan, PhD Patent Agent English, Taiwanese, Mandarin Robert Ko Patent Agent English, Taiwanese

19 Foreign Practice Groups Europe Pascale Brochard European Patent Attorney French, English Francesca Giovannini European Patent Attorney French, German, Italian, English Jean-Paul Ameline European and French Patent Attorney French, English Sophie Riviere European Patent Attorney French, English Evelin Godard Patent Agent French, German, English

20 Role of Paris Office Represent U.S. clients before EPO Leverage technical knowledge of U.S. attorney/agent One firm approach Add value while reducing cost Train U.S. attorney/agent on EP practice Coherent, usable draft responses focused on technical problem Applications with EP-style claims and abstract

21 Role of Paris Office Represent EP clients Drafting of original applications to international standards All drafting done in English Prepare ready-to-file U.S. convention applications Leverage capacity and technical knowledge from U.S.

22 Role of Paris Office Represent Asian clients Simultaneous U.S. and EP filings Single attorney/agent in charge Single point of contact (if desired) Single invoice (if desired) Significant costs savings versus two separate firms Oppositions and third party observations Paris office works with Tokyo office on revoking the EP patents of client s competitors at issuance

23 Role of Tokyo Office Advise Japanese clients on matters of U.S. law Opinions Due diligence Negotiations Revisions of patent applications for U.S. Revision of original Japanese specifications Revision at the time of translation Revision of the translation before filing Revision by preliminary amendment with filing

24 Role of Tokyo Office Liaison between overseas offices and Japanese clients Normal Japan-time business hours Convenient location in Tokyo Close relationship with other offices Facilitates communications in general Facilitates efficiency of specific projects EP Oppositions and third party observations U.S. and EP litigation and licensing efforts U.S. Post Grant Review after AIA

25 Client profile Geographical distribution Asia 25% Europe 8% Other 1% U.S. 66%

26 Federal and State Court, ITC actions Considerations of speed and remedies involved Eastern District of Texas Considerations of speed and factors involved Patent Trolls/NPEs Who they are and what they do Strategies for dealing with one Hurricane Plans Way to be prepared for litigation Litigation Statistics U.S. Litigation Average costs for intellectual property litigation

27 Federal and State Court Parallel State and Federal Court systems 50 States, 94 Federal Districts in 11 Circuits Patent cases always heard in Federal Court Trademark, copyright, and trade secret may be heard in State or Federal Court depending on circumstances District Judges have discretion to set litigation timelines

28 Federal and State Court Remedies - both Federal and State Courts can grant: Injunctions Preliminary Permanent No longer granted automatically (ebay case) Monetary Damages Reasonable royalties Lost profits Enhanced Damages (willful infringement) Attorney s fees Prevailing party in exceptional cases

29 Federal and State Court Whether in Federal or State Court, the presiding judge probably will not: Have detailed knowledge of IP law Have a technical background Plaintiff has a right to trial by jury Jury almost never has technical or legal knowledge Jury makes ultimate decision of validity/infringement

30 Federal and State Court Experts have critical role of explaining issues IP litigation is often a battle of the experts Often, the winner has an expert with: requisite background, knowledge, education, and experience; and an ability to relate favorably to the judge and jury Testifying Expert Someone who will testify at trial All documents and data viewed or created by expert are subject to discovery Attorney must limit the testifying expert s access to information Consulting Expert Someone who merely aids with technical aspects of the case Consulting experts do not testify Work product of consulting experts are not subject to discovery

31 ITC Actions International Trade Commission (ITC) Known as Section 337 Investigations Jurisdiction over imported products only Injunction/Exclusion order are the only remedies Fast-track action (15-18 months) Plaintiff must show domestic industry and use of technology Timelines are set by rule, are short, and are non-extendable Answers in ITC investigations are due quickly after Notice of Investigation issued (20-30 days) typically more complex than answers in U.S. District Court as detailed exhibits such as defensive claim charts are generally included Discovery requests may be served shortly after the investigation is initiated may result in response to requests for production and interrogatories being due even before the original answer is due

32 Eastern District of Texas EDTX - the Patent Litigation Capital of America Geographically: Extends from just north of Dallas, up to the Oklahoma border, east to the Louisiana border, and south to counties north of Houston Court is held in: Tyler, Beaumont, Sherman, Marshall, Lufkin, and Texarkana Most patent lawsuits are filed in Tyler and Marshall Why are so many cases filed in EDTX? Rocket Docket Extremely sophisticated with respect to patent cases Very aggressive time deadlines for pre-trial and trial Time from start to finish was initially less than one year Plaintiff-friendly juries Consider patent infringers to be cattle thieves

33 Eastern District of Texas Why are so many cases filed in EDTX? Strict enforcement of deadlines and discovery rules Established a set of complex rules detailing timelines for infringement contentions, validity contentions, and claim construction Must be familiar with the local rules of court regarding patent matters Judges have little patience for those not following the rules exactly Historical unwillingness to transfer venue Motion to transfer 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) Difficult to obtain transfer when the suit is filed in the plaintiff s home forum (most Patent Trolls/NPEs establish headquarters in EDTX) Plaintiff usually can assure that the suit remains where filed Judges do not typically grant these requests, unless defendants can show no connection with the EDTX (i.e., no products ever sold there)

34 Eastern District of Texas Why are so many cases filed in EDTX? Allow for wide open discovery Mandatory production requirement All relevant information must be promptly produced No exceptions Coupled with new E-discovery rules, discovery is the most expensive part of patent litigation E-Discovery New electronic discovery rules of documents in civil cases Companies involved in civil litigation must meet within the first 30 days of a case s filing to discuss how to handle electronic data The discussion must encompass retention practices, the types of records required and their electronic format, as well as what is considered accessible Having an internal electronic file retention policy helps immensely

35 Patent Trolls / NPEs Patent Troll was originally used to identify entities: Said to go on fishing expeditions, i.e., trolling the waters, in order to find ways to generate revenue from patents NPE (Non-Practicing Entity) is now the preferred terminology for referring to: Individual inventors who do not produce or commercialize the patented invention but sue corporations for infringement Companies who purchase patents as tools for licensing and enforcement and not for commercial production Patentees who patent technologies for the sole purpose of collecting license fees The number of NPE patent lawsuits has increased From 600 cases in 2010 to 1,143 cases in 2011 May even be more cases due to the difficulty of identifying NPE cases

36 Negative Effects Unreasonable licensing fees Threat of injunction outweighs value of patent Lack of proper apportionment of damages Litigation expenses Plaintiff s attorneys on contingent fee Inconvenient forum (EDTX) Hinder technological and industrial growth Negative public perception of patents Positive Effects Patent Trolls / NPEs Create a secondary market for patents Opportunity for small inventors to obtain return on investment in their inventions

37 Litigation Strategies When confronted with Patent Troll/NPE litigation Expect aggressive behavior Act quickly in response Typically, plaintiffs are already prepared Review the party s litigation history and weigh the risks Consider negotiating a running royalty and then making Medimmune attack post-license Look into quality of patents being asserted, and attempt to invalidate patents through reexamination or DJ action Warning - Reexamination may invoke de facto estoppel: Any claim held valid under reexamination will be significantly more difficult to invalidate in subsequent litigation or proceedings Ideally, reexamination should be requested based on prior art that the examiner failed to adequately consider

38 Litigation Strategies Hurricane Plans for litigation Being prepared for litigation before it happens Whether plaintiff or defendant, taking steps to be ready helps Allows the litigation process to proceed more efficiently Saves time and money Makes entire litigation team s job easier Establish procedure for identification of involved individuals Must be customized for particular company / division Important to have information readily available to legal department Employee / contractor roles, responsibilities, and contact information Assemble the appropriate litigation team quickly Company legal department members Trial counsel and local counsel Opinion counsel (different from trial counsel!) Litigation support personnel (experts, vendors, etc.)

39 Litigation Strategies Hurricane Plans for litigation Interview key individuals and collect evidence Sanctions can be imposed for poor evidence collection/preservation Plan for electronic and documentary evidence Balance reasonability of data inclusion with data targeting Clearly define scope and monitor implementation of hold Consider sources of electronic and documentary evidence Paper files Electronic files on desktops, laptops, and mobile devices Electronic files on company servers, third-party servers (e.g., cloud) Designate custodians for collected evidence Evidence must be properly stored, maintained, and updated Evidence must be reviewed for privilege Evidence must be prepared for production

40 Litigation Strategies Hurricane Plans for litigation Be aware that notice letters can start litigation No longer are required to actually threaten suit Declaratory judgment action can be supported by: Identification of patent and product Apprehension of suit Care should be taken when drafting and sending such letters Careful review should be made upon receipt of such letters Plan reaction to lawsuit or threat letter Initial analysis Identification of problem patents Early engagement of invalidity searches on problem patents Obtaining opinions on searched, problem patents Determining defenses and infringement positions

41 Litigation Strategies Hurricane Plans for litigation If you are sued, immediately begin working with counsel do not delay Is this a non-infringement case or an invalidity case? Have opinions of counsel been drafted? How much are the damages involved? If a suit is only threatened consider filing suit first In the United States, a plaintiff has 120 days from the date of filing to serve a Complaint upon the defendant(s). To reserve a preferred venue/forum, a plaintiff can file suit and not serve, spending up to the next 120 days putting their case together, acquiring additional evidence, and (sometimes) attempting to settle the dispute.

42 Litigation Statistics Sources for intellectual property litigation costs American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) conducts survey of U.S. lawyers in law firms and corporations every two years and publishes results Statistics from the 2011 Report of the Economic Survey Litigation Costs Patent, Trademark, Copyright, Trade Secret Misappropriation Costs until end of discovery and total cost through trial Trademark Opposition Costs Two-Party Interference Proceeding Costs Inter Partes Patent Reexamination Costs U.S. Courts websites provide caseload statistics LLM is a Texas-based litigation support company Provides customized e-discovery and case management software Maintains real-time statistics on litigation timing and costs

43 Litigation Statistics Active District Court intellectual property litigation 25,334 patent law suits in U.S. 4,037 in Texas Districts 3,026 in Eastern District of Texas 28,372 trademark law suits in U.S. 27,359 copyright law suits in U.S. Average time to trial in District Courts - 36 months 4,980,441 average pages of documents produced during discovery in patent law suits 426 appeals of patent law suits heard by the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in % reversal rate of District Court decisions Average time from docketing to disposition months

44 Litigation Statistics

45 Litigation Statistics

46 Litigation Statistics

47 Litigation Statistics

48 Litigation Statistics

49 Litigation Statistics

50 Litigation Statistics Patent Litigation 2011 Less than < $1 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $350,000 Total cost through trial $650,000 $1 - $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $1,500,000 Total cost through trial $2,500,000 More than $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $3,000,000 Total cost through trial $5,000,000

51 Litigation Statistics Trademark Litigation 2011 Less than < $1 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $200,000 Total cost through trial $350,000 $1 - $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $425,000 Total cost through trial $775,000 More than $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $1,000,000 Total cost through trial $1,500,000

52 Litigation Statistics Copyright Litigation 2011 Less than < $1 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $200,000 Total cost through trial $350,000 $1 - $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $400,000 Total cost through trial $700,000 More than $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $750,000 Total cost through trial $1,375,000

53 Litigation Statistics Trade Secret Misappropriation Litigation 2011 Less than < $1 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $250,000 Total cost through trial $425,000 $1 - $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $700,000 Total cost through trial $1,000,000 More than $25 Million at risk Cost until end of discovery $1,360,000 Total cost through trial $2,500,000

54 Litigation Statistics

55 Litigation Statistics

56 Litigation Statistics

57 Litigation Statistics

58 Litigation Statistics Trademark Opposition 2011 Cost until end of discovery $50,000 Total Cost $90,000 Two-Party Interference Proceeding 2011 Cost until end of discovery $175,000 Total Cost $338,000 Inter Partes Reexamination 2011 Through filing request $35,000 Inclusive of first patent owner response $50,000 Inclusive of all patent owner responses $75,000 Inclusive of an appeal to the board $100,000 Inclusive of an appeal to Federal Court $200,000

59 THANK YOU Thomas K. Scherer

60 ありがとうございました ご質問等ございましたら 下記までお気軽にお問い合わせください RYUKA 国際特許事務所 東京都新宿区西新宿 新宿エルタワー 22 階 TEL: FAX: